Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 October 2004 15:13, Jim Gettys wrote:
>>>Kristian, Donny, Torry, Mike, Roland, Daniel, Alan and Leon have been
>>discussing details of stable release policies in the Release Wrangler's
>>list; we need to strike a good balance of convenience vs. rigor here.
>>A serious strawman of policy was written by Kristian here:
>>http://freedesktop.org/pipermail/release-wranglers/2004-October/001070.html>> I thought Kristian's proposal was pretty solid. Torrey had raised the
> objection that the requirement for a bug number for each change might be
> excessive. Personally bugzilla is so integrated with my workflow that I
> don't see this as an issue. I would at minimum like for each change to
> include _some_ external reference, be that a link to a message in the mail
> archives, or a distributor bug number, or whatever. I can deal with that
> being a SHOULD rather than a MUST though.
What should be done about things like the endianess issues in the
t_vertex code in the r128 and r200 drivers? I committed fixes to Mesa
CVS (trunk). I'd really like to see those fixes committed. Without
them, those drivers really suck on big-endian systems. :) I suspect
that radeon driver has the same problems, but I don't have any PowerPC
R100 cards to test.
If none of these bugs had fixes already in CVS, I'd suggests that a bug
be filed for all of them (i.e., "Big-endian problems with t_vertex
drivers") and that depend on a bug for each of the individual drivers.
Is that still the right answer?